Recent Articles
Monday, March 12, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
- 0 Comments
In her post on March 10th, L.A. radio host Kennedy described the public reaction to her comment on Real Time with Bill Maher, that Atheism is a religion. The reaction to the comment was dramatic; to say ther least, with Kennedy’s Facebook and Twitter feed becoming “engorged with angry responses.” the question posed by this blog, over whether or not Atheism is a religion, could have far reaching effects on how the First Amendment is interpreted and applied.
The United States has been trying to deal with the position of religion since its inception and, as Kennedy points out, a lot of the difficulties that arise can be attributed to the lack of a clear definition of religion. Sadly, if I have learned anything as a Religious Studies student, it is that defining religion is as easy as telling someone who had never had a banana what a banana tastes like. The fundamentally subjective nature of religion allows the definition to be tailored to the user’s purpose. For example, one could argue that religion is the belief in a god or gods, which control human destiny. Based on this definition, Buddhism, one of the world’s largest religions would be excluded, due to its lack of a central deity(s).
The argument over the religious nature of Atheism appears to be a problematic one at first glance, but that issue disappears when you examine the definition of theism which according to the OED, means, Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. Atheism then would fall into the same category as Buddhism, with there being no “divine” deity. While some might argue the Buddha is their deity, I would respond by saying that there are many Buddha’s and everyone has the potential to achieve this state. In fact, for a long time the U.S. court systems would not accept witness testimonies from Buddhists because they did not believe in a god, negating the swearing in process. Since then Atheism has become a religion in its own right, and is an active participant in “religious” debates.
I believe the strong reaction to the argument that Atheism is a religion stems from Atheism’s adversarial position in relation to Theistic religious traditions, and the hostile nature that frequents their dialogues. The only impediment I see in Atheists succeeding is the number of self-identifying Atheists, who also identify with recognized religious traditions. Kennedy points out in her post that both sides are in agreement as to the non-religious status of Atheism, seemingly making this a moot point. I would argue that much of the publicly stated positions for both sides, are merely instances of posturing within the context of their appearance to the public and the consequences thereof.
Georgia is facing on-going controversy involving “In God We Trust” stickers on state license plates. An Atlanta Journal Constitution article describes the most recent decision, to make the stickers free to anyone citizen who wants one. This bill passed on Feb. 28th, with a 48-3 vote. Previously, the stickers could be purchased for $1 each.
This debate, however, dates back to Spring 2011. Originally, the license plates designs were put to a contest, where car owners could vote for the design for the new Georgia license plates. Some of the designs included “In God We Trust” where the county decal is typically found. In July, Republican Senator Bill Health proposed to make the motto default on all license plates manufactured after July 1, 2011. This bill, however, was dropped in committee. Health proposed the most recent legislation because he believes it to be, as the AJC article phrases it, “’ unconscionable’ for the state to profit from what he considered an expression of faith and respect.”
This issue has stirred considerable controversy throughout its run. The initial move to make the stickers mandatory struck statewide debate. Atheist groups are protesting the most recent decision to offer the stickers free of charge. One such website states, “...what state needs hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue when its representatives can preach their faith for free?!”
The earlier move to make the stickers mandatory seems to be a clear violation of the rights of motorists. The debate over whether or not to charge for the stickers is trickier. It seems particularly complicated because it involves a state-run service as well as individual purchases for an optional product. By not requiring the sticker to be mandatory, the state is not necessarily infringing on the rights of the individual. The concern does not seem to be one framed primarily in terms of individual rights, but rather of the right of the state to offer the product for free, which is a highly monetary concern. Thus, the legal issue at stake here is whether or not the state has the right to monetarily benefit from the sales of these stickers.
I think the decision to offer the stickers for free should be overturned. The state would benefit from the sales of the stickers, and no individual person would be at great loss for $1 per sticker. This is a luxury provided by the state, not a right of expression. Although the petitioning Atheist group cited above opposes the measure for monetary concerns, some may oppose the sticker being on the license plate at all because it is a state issued, legal license. Although I think this is a valid concern, it does not seem to be an innate infringement of rights to offer the stickers at a low cost. Sen. Health’s argument falls on the other side of the debate, that the state cannot conscientiously benefit over what he sees as a sign of respect. However, the stickers are an optional product sold by the state, not a right of individual expression. Charging for the stickers is not preventing anyone from freedom of religious expression, nor is it necessarily intruding on individual rights since the stickers are an optional addition.
Omar Grayson, a prisoner at Big Muddy Correctional Center, was forced to cut his dreadlocks by an officer at the Correctional Center. Grayson is a member of the African Hebrew group. African Hebrew Israelites believe they cannot cut their hair. In Illinois, the location of the Correctional Center, inmates are allowed to have “’any length of hair’ as long as long as it ‘does not create a security risk’”. The officer claimed Grayson’s hair to be a security risk, but he did not explain why. Grayson complained about the situation; the chaplain of the center commented about the situation and “claimed that only Rastafarian inmates were entitled to wear dreadlocks on religious grounds”. Grayson appealed his situation to the Internal Prison Court and was denied his appeal based on the chaplain’s comments.
The case was heard by the United States Court of Appeals. The ruling was in favor of Omar Grayson. The court found that the prison was threatening religious freedom. They believed the chaplain’s comment about Rastafarian inmates was discriminatory towards other inmates. Big Muddy Correctional Center “lets Rastafarians wear dreadlocks and did not justify why Mr. Grayson posed a security risk the Rastafarians did not”. In an effort to award Grayson and other inmates religious freedom, the court ruled in favor of Grayson.
How did this ruling award religious freedom? The case at its heart was an issue of discrimination among religions. When the United States Court of Appeals ruled that Grayson’s forced haircut was religious discrimination, it forbid the forced cutting of hair unless it was a security threat. An officer or anyone in power over the inmates cannot force an inmate to cut their hair if they claim religious belief for hair length. They have no right to tell the religious inmate their views are wrong. However, if the person in power over the inmate has a legitimate reason for the inmate to cut their hair because of security purposes, they must be able to explain why.
Grayson’s case could have been denied if there was a compelling argument on the officer’s side about a security threat. I think the chaplain’s comment hurt the case. It makes me wonder how the case would have favored if the chaplain had not commented in this way.
This case reminds me of the Reynoldscase. The courts ruled in a similar fashion to the Omar Grayson case. Polygamy and all religious practices were allowed and could not be deemed incorrect by the law. Religion and its beliefs are/were not allowed to be dissected by the law and determined wrong. However, law could be enforced and ultimately stop the practice if there was a threat of security. Unlike the case, the court ruled in favor of Grayson and his religious beliefs because they were not a threat to security at the center. The Mormons were not granted as much favor. Due the prospective of threat on security because of polygamy, polygamy was banned and outlawed.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
- 0 Comments
Reporting by Philip Pullella; Editing by Robert Woodward)
Before reading this article you may find yourself developing negative assumptions towards the Vatican because of the title "Vatican Makes Money Laundering List of U.S. State Department" written by Philip Pullella. Most times reporters create a catchy title in order to capture the reader's attention before actual grasp of the context of such articles. Before assuming let’s look at the text to gather proper understanding.
This article presents the issue of possible corruption in religious groups, especially those that hold very important roles in public life. What I am proposing is that the reader identify with the actions that the Vatican church officials take in this case in order to comply with international standards in prevention of this sort of corruption; aside from making blindsided assumptions and resent the Vatican.
In this article there seems to be less of an issue but more of a presentation of the Vatican’s historical involvement in the affairs of the U.S State Department’s money-laundering list. Apparently the Vatican has found itself on the list in the category of ‘of concern’. Although it may not have been of high risk concern it does put a dent in social perception of the righteousness of religious institutions. What I am referring to is the role that religion plays in society in reference to what is good or bad behavior. According to Was America Founded as a Christian Nation and We Have a Religion, religion is influential on the definition of morality in societal acceptance of groups; the Vatican should hold no exception in displaying moral behavior.
Generally, the Vatican has tried to cover up its bad blood from their past but it has also set up a new system for open communication of the transactions between the Vatican and the Vatican Bank to eliminate vulnerability to money launderers. The Vatican has made an effort to comply with the international standards against financial crimes. As a human being and associated with such a successful money producing field it’s easy to assume that there is some dishonesty or possible corruption within this institution but this report introduces what I find as positive assertion to this issue.
What is unique about this article is that the reporter presents this issue that includes the Vatican and the legal issues behind being placed on the list of money-laundering of the U.S State Department. I find that the effort the Vatican takes with details surrounding what they did in the past and what they are doing now were greatly expressed in this article. It is unique because most people do use the title to steer their train of thought before reading all the text and this one seems to be tricky in relating its information.
Religious Exemption in Michigan’s Anti- Bullying Bill
On November 2nd , 2011 a majority Republican controlled senate in Michigan passed an anti-bulling bill. According to an article in Time magazine online (http://swampland.time.com/2011/11/04/why-does-michigans-anti-bullying-bill-protect-religious-tormenters), this bill did not require school districts to report bulling incidents, did not include provisions for enforcement or teacher training, and did not hold administrators accountable if they failed to act. The article states that “Michigan is already one of only three states in the country that have not enacted any form of anti-bullying legislation. For more than a decade, Democrats in the state legislature have fought their Republican colleagues and social conservatives such as Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who referred to anti-bullying measures as “a Trojan horse for the homosexual agenda.” In that time, at least ten Michigan students who were victims of bullying have killed themselves”.
The Democrats in the senate had asked for particular students that were prone to being bulled to be enumerated, such as racial and religious minorities, and gay students, however the Republican voted against this inclusion, in favor for the addition of “special” protections for religiously- motivated bulling, all 11 Democratic senators voted against the legislation, but they were outnumbered and the bill (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBS-0137.pdf) was passed.
Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer accused her colleagues of creating a “blueprint for bullying”. “As passed today,” said Whitmer, “bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”
The Republican argument was that the addition of this “special” protection for religion was done so as to not limit the first Amendment guarantees of religious freedom to express ones religious beliefs. Ironically the bill is named “Matt’s Safe School Law”, after Matt Epling, a Michigan student that had committed suicide after prolonged bulling at school. After examining this bill, I am left wonder who exactly does it protect. I believe the bill just creates a legal loop hole for allowing students and even the school employees to get away with bulling. The social conservatives have previously unsuccessfully attempted for an inclusion of a provision that would protect religious freedom when congress expanded the definition motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation hate crime. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592)
I believe the main constitutional issues that should come into play in this situation should be the civil rights of the victims (the children being bullied). Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age. Therefore should laws infringing on the civil rights of citizens get passed? The civil rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship include the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments, and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality. The civil right of an individual is protected under the Equal protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[
I do not believe the “free exercise clause” of The First Amendment should be applicable when it causes harm or violates the civil liberties of others, especially children.
The main/ landmark cases from U.S. Supreme Court seem to be:
Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education.
Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause
Throughout the news we hear constant debates over the role of religion in high schools and middle schools but new developments in Indiana are asking about its role in daycare. During last month an infant drowned who was attending a religious affiliated daycare that is registered as a non-profit and receives government funding but is not registered with the state as a daycare. This tragic incident has many questioning why these non-profits are not licensed within the state and can still function as a daycare. Within this debate there remains a balancing act between the power of government regulations within religious institutions and the right of a religious institution to function without government influence.
The debate about the non-profits in Indiana stems from the question of why these religious daycares are not seeking the licensing that their secular counterparts are. Some state that this move is to avoid “most state oversight” and this claim may carry some weight. One example that has many supporting this claim is the number of regulations that the two types of daycare have to abide by such as; “licensed centers must follow 192 rules; the unlicensed faith-based ministries, 21”. To further this sides argument the article states that “restricting religious expression isn’t one of them”.
On the other side many are claiming that they are retaining their right to teach religion in their daycares. Many on this of the debate fear that allowing the government into the school beyond the current regulations could open the door for limiting religious expression. One man states that “we would not want to see a tragic moment in a church be used for government oversight”. There becomes a real fear that the government is attempting to enter the church through the door of the daycare.
This issue is important to our discussion because it shows the current debate going on where the role of the government belongs within the practices of the church. For the government there is a concern for the children in the daycares that are not licensed because the safety regulations are limited. While there is a concern for the children, there is also the concern at where the line must be drawn on the issue of governmental regulations within the practices of a church. For me, I have to say that the concern of the children really comes to the forefront of my mind. One incident has already occurred due to the lack of regulations for safety issues within the nonprofit organizations. I believe that there can be a limit to what kind of regulations that the government enforces and still keep a separation of religion and state concerns. For the state the concern is the children while for the religious institution it is the freedom for religious expression. This debate is bringing to light the ever-long struggle to find that fine line between government interference and religious freedom and putting it within the context of the typical daycare.
Pat Robertson of “The 700 Club” fame has recently in an interview stated that he believes marijuana should be legalized. This on its surface seems like a shocking argument, but then when you listen to what he is saying it begins to make a bit more sense. One of the first quotes they offer from him is, “I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.” Throughout the article the arguments he makes are based more on secular views than Christian ideology.
A second article on the statement involved the reporter interviewing various Christian leaders concerning their opinion on whether marijuana should be legalized or not. Surprisingly the split was not simply based on whether they believed the use of marijuana to be a sin or not. They quote Reese, S.J., senior fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, as saying, “There’s a tradition within Catholic theology that the purpose of law is not to outlaw every sin. Prohibition was a classic failure of trying to do that,"
In all honesty what I find interesting about the pair of articles here is that it is the reporters and not the Christians that are interested in talking about religion. In the New York Times article Pat Robertson’s arguments mostly talk about social justice, comparison to alcohol, and the cost of trying to fight a war that we have already lost. His two comments on religion are that he believes “in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up” and a statement about problems he had with alcohol before turning to God. Even his two comments that could be tied to religion are not really core arguments. The first is a statement that could be looked at as a statement of the proper way of deterring crime and the second as a biographical comment.
The second article goes more into the religious side of the matter. Unlike the interview with Pat Robertson the second article looks at possible interpretations of the Bible’s stance on the use of marijuana. A large section of the article is devoted to religious questions that were not even touched in the New York Times article. They discuss the various ways of interpreting the Bible that could lead to seeing the use of marijuana as a sin or not, and then they discuss the opinions of various leaders about the legalization. This is where we get the discussion that shows that the split of Christian leaders that do or do not think it should be legal does not neatly follow the same lines as those that think it is or is not a sin.
Overall the two articles combined show a move within some areas of Christian faith to look at laws with their secular effects in mind. The articles show various Christian leaders that are pushing for social justice and an accounting of how effective a law is not whether the prohibition in the law matches to a Christian sin or not. I believe this article shows several groups of people that while they do not disregard their religion also do not see it as something that they should enforce upon others.
